Floor Statements

Mr. President, I have long been a champion of domestic biofuel production, including ethanol, biodiesel and cellulosic fuels. Domestic biodiesel production supports tens of thousands of jobs. Replacing traditional diesel with biodiesel reduces emissions and creates cleaner air. Homegrown biodiesel improves our energy security by diversifying our transportation fuels and reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Biodiesel itself is a very diverse fuel. It can be produced from a wide array of resources such as recycled cooking oil, soybean and other plant oils, and animal fats.

I am proud of the success of the American biodiesel industry, and I am glad to be introducing today the American Renewable Fuel and Job Creation Act of 2017, which will ensure the continued success. I appreciate Senator Cantwell's leadership in joining this effort. I also appreciate the support of Senators Roberts, Hirono, Blunt, Whitehouse, Ernst, Heitkamp, Thune, Udall, Heinrich, Shaheen, Klobuchar, Franken, Donnelly, and Murray. This bill will modify the biodiesel fuel blender's credit to a domestic production credit starting this year and extend the credit through 2020.

Congress created the biodiesel tax incentive in 2005 when I was chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. As a result of this incentive and the Renewable Fuel Standard, biodiesel is providing significant benefits to the nation.

Senator Cantwell and I have been advocating the mixture credit be modified to a producer credit since 2009. Converting to a producer credit improves the incentive in many ways. The blenders credit can be difficult to administer because the blending of the fuel can occur at many different stages of the fuel distribution. This can make it difficult to ensure that only fuel that qualifies for the credit claims the incentive. It has been susceptible to abuse because of this.

A credit for domestic production will also ensure that we are incentivizing the domestic industry and associated American jobs, rather than subsidizing imported biofuels. A credit for domestic production will also ensure that we are incentivizing the domestic industry and associated American jobs, rather than subsidizing imported biofuels. Since 2014, we have seen imports increase from 510 million gallons to about 1 billion gallons in 2016, and already in the first quarter of 2017 imports are 10 percent higher than they were last year at this time.

We should not provide a U.S. taxpayer benefit to imported biofuels. By restricting the credit to domestic production, we will also save taxpayer money. The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation estimated a similar amendment adopted in the Finance Committee in 2015 would have reduced the cost of the extension by $90 million for 2016 alone.

Importantly, modifying the credit will have little to no impact on the consumer. Much of the credit will continue to be passed on to the blender and ultimately, the consumer. Additionally, the U.S. biodiesel industry is currently operating at approximately 65 percent of capacity, which does not even account for idled capacity. The fact is, the domestic biodiesel industry has the capacity and access to affordable feedstocks to meet the demand of U.S. consumers.

The current biodiesel credit expired at the end of 2016. Adoption of the American Renewable Fuel and Job Creation Act of 2017 should be strongly considered as part of tax reform efforts currently underway. Absent tax reform, Congress should include it as part of any tax legislation extending expired tax provisions.

Modifying the current blenders credit to a producers credit will ensure that the credit is doing what Congress intended--incentivizing investment in domestic biodiesel production and promoting American jobs. Surely we can agree that we should not be providing a U.S. taxpayer subsidy to already heavily subsidized foreign biodiesel imports. I therefore urge my colleagues to support the production of American biodiesel and this commonsense, cost reduction reform.

Mr. President, I have long been a champion of domestic biofuel production, including ethanol, biodiesel and cellulosic fuels. Domestic biodiesel production supports tens of thousands of jobs. Replacing traditional diesel with biodiesel reduces emissions and creates cleaner air. Homegrown biodiesel improves our energy security by diversifying our transportation fuels and reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Biodiesel itself is a very diverse fuel. It can be produced from a wide array of resources such as recycled cooking oil, soybean and other plant oils, and animal fats.

I am proud of the success of the American biodiesel industry, and I am glad to be introducing today the American Renewable Fuel and Job Creation Act of 2017, which will ensure the continued success. I appreciate Senator Cantwell's leadership in joining this effort. I also appreciate the support of Senators Roberts, Hirono, Blunt, Whitehouse, Ernst, Heitkamp, Thune, Udall, Heinrich, Shaheen, Klobuchar, Franken, Donnelly, and Murray. This bill will modify the biodiesel fuel blender's credit to a domestic production credit starting this year and extend the credit through 2020.

Congress created the biodiesel tax incentive in 2005 when I was chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. As a result of this incentive and the Renewable Fuel Standard, biodiesel is providing significant benefits to the nation.

Senator Cantwell and I have been advocating the mixture credit be modified to a producer credit since 2009. Converting to a producer credit improves the incentive in many ways. The blenders credit can be difficult to administer because the blending of the fuel can occur at many different stages of the fuel distribution. This can make it difficult to ensure that only fuel that qualifies for the credit claims the incentive. It has been susceptible to abuse because of this.

A credit for domestic production will also ensure that we are incentivizing the domestic industry and associated American jobs, rather than subsidizing imported biofuels. A credit for domestic production will also ensure that we are incentivizing the domestic industry and associated American jobs, rather than subsidizing imported biofuels. Since 2014, we have seen imports increase from 510 million gallons to about 1 billion gallons in 2016, and already in the first quarter of 2017 imports are 10 percent higher than they were last year at this time.

We should not provide a U.S. taxpayer benefit to imported biofuels. By restricting the credit to domestic production, we will also save taxpayer money. The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation estimated a similar amendment adopted in the Finance Committee in 2015 would have reduced the cost of the extension by $90 million for 2016 alone.

Importantly, modifying the credit will have little to no impact on the consumer. Much of the credit will continue to be passed on to the blender and ultimately, the consumer. Additionally, the U.S. biodiesel industry is currently operating at approximately 65 percent of capacity, which does not even account for idled capacity. The fact is, the domestic biodiesel industry has the capacity and access to affordable feedstocks to meet the demand of U.S. consumers.

The current biodiesel credit expired at the end of 2016. Adoption of the American Renewable Fuel and Job Creation Act of 2017 should be strongly considered as part of tax reform efforts currently underway. Absent tax reform, Congress should include it as part of any tax legislation extending expired tax provisions.

Modifying the current blenders credit to a producers credit will ensure that the credit is doing what Congress intended--incentivizing investment in domestic biodiesel production and promoting American jobs. Surely we can agree that we should not be providing a U.S. taxpayer subsidy to already heavily subsidized foreign biodiesel imports. I therefore urge my colleagues to support the production of American biodiesel and this commonsense, cost reduction reform.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I support Mr. Rosenstein's nomination to be Deputy Attorney General. Not only is he a very experienced and accomplished attorney, he has served in the Justice Department for almost three decades under five Presidents, but he served as the U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland under both President Bush and President Obama--a very rare record of service. During his nominations hearing to be Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Rosenstein promised us that he would ``work to defend the integrity and independence of our justice department, to protect public safety, to preserve civil rights, to pursue justice, to advance the rule of law and to promote public confidence.''

However, many Members have mentioned they are concerned about the FBI Director's announcement of an investigation of Russia. And during his nominations hearing, Mr. Rosenstein was repeatedly asked if he would commit to appointing a special counsel to handle any investigation in this matter. I was impressed with his unfailing commitment to independence when he answered these questions.

Rather than prejudge investigations before he knows the facts, he unwaveringly promised to make decisions only after thoroughly reviewing all the relevant information in a particular case. He committed to not prejudge the situation before he knew the facts. And he committed to conducting every investigation with independence.

I personally believe Mr. Rosenstein possesses the necessary independence to conduct any investigation of this type. He told us he had never met with Russian officials nor has he spoken to the President or Attorney General about this matter. And he spoke in great length about his career-long commitment to independence and to conduct his work free from political concerns.

In fact, we already know that he has a well-known reputation for independence. In 2012, Attorney General Holder specifically asked Mr. Rosenstein to handle a special investigation into leaks of classified information because of his reputation for independence and impartiality.

When Republicans suggested a special prosecutor might be appropriate, members of the Judiciary Committee assured us that none was necessary precisely because Mr. Rosenstein was at the helm of the investigation. One member of the Committee described him as a ``scrupulous man'' and ``independent.'' There was ``no reason to believe why [he] cannot work with the FBI and assemble a very strong prosecution team where warranted.''

Mr. Rosenstein is still scrupulous and independent. If Mr. Rosenstein could conduct an investigation with independence under Holder then, he can certainly do it now. Furthermore, Mr. Rosenstein comes with high recommendations from a bipartisan list of former Attorneys General and Deputy Attorneys General. And he comes with high recommendations from his home state Senators, current and former.

Former Senator Mikulski wrote the committee and told us that he will be a ``strong, experienced leader at the Department of Justice who is fair and committed to the equal application of our laws'' and ``In these polarized times, now, more than ever we need a strong, experienced leader at the Department of Justice who is fair and committed to the equal application of our laws. I hope the Senate will confirm Rod Rosenstein for this important position.''

After Senator Cardin described all Mr. Rosenstein's professional accomplishments when he was introducing him at the hearing, he said, ``What impresses me the most, he has done this in a totally non- partisan manner.'' And concluded by saying, ``I think Mr. Rosenstein is the right person at the right time for Deputy Attorney General.''

Finally, James Cole, President Obama's Deputy Attorney General, wrote to inform the committee that Mr. Rosenstein will respect the need for the Department ``to not only enforce the laws, but to also maintain a level of independence that enables it to have credibility in the eyes of our citizens.''

From all I see and know about him, I believe Mr. Rosenstein will keep his promise for integrity and independence. He promised us if he is confirmed as Deputy Attorney General, ``all investigations under my supervision [will] be initiated and conducted in a fair, professional, and impartial manner, without regard to political considerations.'' We can't ask for anything more. I urge all my colleagues to join me in voting to confirm Mr. Rosenstein to be Deputy Attorney General.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time postcloture on the Rosenstein nomination expire at 5 p.m. today and that, if confirmed, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate resume consideration of the Acosta nomination.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have 5 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders.

Pursuant to Rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Committee on Armed Services

The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 25, 2017, at 9:30 a.m., in open session, to receive testimony on policy and strategy in the Asia- Pacific.

Committee on Finance

The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 25, 2017, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to consider the nomination of Robert Lighthizer, of Florida, to be United States Trade Representative.

Committee on Foreign Relations

The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 25, 2017, at 9:45 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``The Crisis in Libya: Next Steps and U.S. Policy Options.''

Committee on the Judiciary

The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on April 25, 2017, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Intellectual Property--Driver of Innovation: Making Our Lives Healthier, Safer, and more Productive.''

Committee on Intelligence

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the 115th Congress of the U.S. Senate on Tuesday, April 25, 2017, from 2:15 p.m.-4:00 p.m., in room SH-219 of the Senate Hart Office Building to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. President, we often hear about the term ``Greatest Generation'' in describing the people who endured the Great Depression and persevered in World War II. Today I am proud to talk about one of those people who is a part of the Greatest Generation, my constituent John Massick.

John was born, quite fittingly, on Veteran's Day in 1915. Last November, John celebrated his 101st birthday.

Mr. Massick enlisted in the Army in 1941, serving the H Company 378th Infantry Division. During his time in the Army, John was promoted to the rank of sergeant. John served in combat, including multiple battles in France during 1944. Mr. Massick's service concluded upon his honorable discharge in 1945. He earned several decorations in the line of duty, earning the Good Conduct Medal, American Defense Service Ribbon, two Bronze Stars, and others.

After John's discharge from duty, he returned home to Davenport, IA, where he still lives. John and his late wife, Velma, raised two boys.

Our country can't thank Mr. Massick enough for his service. We will never truly be able to repay the debt owed to those who put their lives on the line in defense of freedom, not just for Americans but for those around the world. While I may not ever be able to thank Mr. Massick enough for his service, I do hope that shedding light on his incredible service may serve as a symbol of this body's gratitude.

Madam President, we are about to vote on the nomination of Judge Gorsuch, so I would like to say to my colleagues why I am so pleased that we will soon be referring to him as ``Justice Gorsuch.''

I opened our Judiciary Committee hearing with this:

One of Justice Scalia's best opinions begins with this

declaration: it is the ``proud boast of our democracy that we

have a government of laws and not of men. . . . Without a

secure structure of separated powers, our Bill of Rights

would be worthless.''

The separation of powers in our Constitution is a guardian of our liberty. Judge Gorsuch understands that. His deep understanding of the separation of powers enlivens his opinions.

By faithfully enforcing the boundaries among the branches of government and the power of the Federal Government in our lives, this Justice will ensure that the law protects our liberties.

Here is the other thing that is important about a judge who respects the separation of powers: We know he will be independent. He told us that he is his own man, that no person speaks for him. He is not beholden to the President who appointed him. His testimony shows that he is not beholden to us in the Congress either. He wouldn't compromise his independence to win confirmation votes. He passed the test.

This is a man of integrity, and his qualifications for the bench are exceptional. You know the story: bachelor's from Columbia University, Harvard Law School, doctorate from Oxford University, partnership at a prestigious law firm, and high-level Justice Department service for the people of our country, but most importantly, a decade-long record of faithfully applying the law on the Federal bench in 2,700 cases as a member of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Let me sum up this way: This brilliant, honest, humble man is a judge's judge, and he will make a superb Justice.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, there are some people who need to have a thank-you for what we just completed here--people who hardly ever get any attention. So I will take a couple of minutes to express my appreciation to some of the staff who worked on this Supreme Court nomination.

The staff for both the majority and minority put in a lot of hours and reviewed a lot of material. Their work ensured that the hearing we held for Judge Gorsuch went smoothly and was fair to all of the Members. Our staff reviewed all of the 2,700 cases Judge Gorsuch participated in as well as 180,000 pages of documents that were produced by the Department of Justice and the George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum that were related to that nomination.

First, on my staff, I would like to recognize my Judiciary Committee staff director, Kolan Davis. Mr. Davis has been with me for 31 years, and I always value his wise counsel.

I thank, as well, my personal office chief of staff, Jill Kozeny, who has been with me for 27 years.

My deputy staff director is Rita Lari, and my chief nominations counsel is right here at my side, Ted Lehman.

I would also like to thank counsels Megan Lacy, Lauren Mehler, Kasey O'Connor, and Katharine Willey. Each of them worked incredibly hard.

Also on the team were several special counsels who joined the staff to work on this important nomination. They are Dan Guarnera, Bill Lane, Katie Roholt, and Carol Szurkowski.

Every one of these talented lawyers played a very important role, and I think every member of the Senate Judiciary Committee benefited from their wise counsel throughout this confirmation process.

I would also like to acknowledge and thank Ranking Member Feinstein, the Senator from California. The ranking member and her staff approached this process seriously from the very beginning. So I want to thank her staff for all the work they have put into preparing for the hearing and the debate, both in committee and here on the floor.

Thank you to her staff director, Jennifer Duck, and several of the other lawyers on her staff who, I know, put a lot of time into ensuring that the hearing was a success. They include Paige Herwig, Nazneen Mehta, and Chan Park.

I am also thankful for my very talented press team, Beth Levine and Taylor Foy, and for Jen Heins for keeping me on schedule, as well as for my personal office staff and the rest of the Judiciary Committee staff who took care of things while I was on the floor and during the long hours in the hearing.

I also deeply appreciate the work of Senator McConnell's staff who was constantly in contact with my staff--most importantly John Abegg.

The people I mentioned bore the bulk of the workload and labored tirelessly night after night, day after day, and nonstop through the weekends. They deserve our recognition as a tribute to their hard work, professionalism, and dedication to public service.

Finally, my thanks to the Judiciary Committee's chief clerk, Roslyne Turner, and her team, Michelle Heller and Jason Covey.

All of these staff members contributed to this process, and we would not have been able to conduct such a fair and thorough hearing without their hard work and their professionalism. To each of them, I extend a heartfelt thanks, and if I left anybody out, I will buy them a Dairy Queen.

Mr. President, finally, my wife Barbara is in the Capitol today. As always, I thank her for her support and partnership for more than 62 years.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, before I start, I ask unanimous consent that the debate time on the nomination of Judge Gorsuch during Tuesday's session of the Senate be divided as follows: the time until 3:30 p.m. be under the control of the chairman of the Judiciary Committee; the time from 3:30 p.m. until 4:30 p.m. be under the control of the minority; the time from 4:30 p.m. until 5:30 p.m. be under the control of the majority; the time from 5:30 p.m. until 6:30 p.m. be under the control of the minority; and finally, that the time from 6:30 p.m. until 6:45 p.m. be under the control of the majority.

Mr. President, today we will continue to debate the nomination of Judge Neil M. Gorsuch to serve as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

The Judiciary Committee held four full days of hearings last month. The judge testified for more than 20 hours. He answered more than 1,000 questions during his testimony and hundreds more questions for the record. We have had the opportunity to review the 2,700 cases he has heard, and we have had the opportunity to review the more than 180,000 pages of documents produced by the Bush Library and the Department of Justice. Now, after all of this, my Democratic colleagues unfortunately appear to remain committed to what they have been talking about for a long period of time: filibustering the nomination of this very well qualified jurist.

Even after all of this process, there is no attack against the judge that sticks. In fact, it has been clear since before the judge was nominated that some Members in the Democratic leadership would search desperately for a reason to oppose him.

As the minority leader said before the nomination: ``It's hard for me to imagine a nominee that Donald Trump would choose that would get Republican support that we could support.'' That is the end of the quote from the minority leader.

He said later, and I will continue to quote him: ``If the nominee is out of the mainstream, we'll do our best to hold the seat open.''

Then the President nominated Judge Gorsuch. This judge is eminently qualified to fill Justice Scalia's seat on the Supreme Court, and there is no denying that whatsoever.

Let me tell you some things about him. He is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School. He earned a doctorate in philosophy from Oxford University and served as a law clerk for two Supreme Court Justices.

During a decade in private practice, he earned a reputation as a distinguished trial and appellate lawyer. He served with distinction in the Department of Justice. He was confirmed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals by a unanimous voice vote in this body.

The record he has built during his decade on the bench has earned him the universal respect of his colleagues both on the bench and the bar. This judge is eminently qualified to do what the President appointed him to do.

Faced with an unquestionably qualified nominee, my friends on the other side of the aisle, my Democratic colleagues, have continually moved the goalpost, setting test after test for this judge to meet. But do you know what? This judge has passed all of those tests, all with flying colors, so the people on the other side of the aisle--the Democrats in the minority--are left with a ``no'' vote in search of a reason.

Let's go through some of their arguments. First, the minority leader announced that the nominee must prove himself to be a mainstream judge. Is he a mainstream judge or not? Well, consider his record: Judge Gorsuch has heard 2,700 cases and written 240 published opinions. He has voted with the majority in 99 percent of the cases, and 97 percent of the cases he has heard have been decided unanimously. Only one of those 2,700 cases was ever reversed by the Supreme Court, and it happens that Judge Gorsuch did not write the opinion.

Then consider what others say about him. He has been endorsed by prominent Democratic members of the Supreme Court bar, including Neal Katyal, President Obama's Acting Solicitor General. This Acting Solicitor General wrote a New York Times op-ed entitled ``Why Liberals Should Back Neil Gorsuch.'' Mr. Katyal wrote: ``I have no doubt that if confirmed, Judge Gorsuch would help to restore confidence in the rule of law.''

He went on to write that the judge's record ``should give the American people confidence that he will not compromise principle to favor the President who appointed him.''

Likewise, another well-known person, David Frederick, a board member

of the liberal American Constitution Society, says we should ``applaud such independence of mind and spirit in Supreme Court nominees.''

So after hearing what people on both the right and the left have said about the judge, it is clear that he is ``mainstream,'' but the goalpost seems to move. Next we hear that the judge doesn't care about the ``little guy'' and, instead, rules for the ``big guy.''

First of all, that is a goofy argument. Just ask liberal law professor Noah Feldman. If you ask Professor Feldman, he says this criticism is a ``truly terrible idea'' because ``the rule of law isn't liberal or conservative--and it shouldn't be.''

The strategy on this point became clear during our hearing: Pore through 2,700 cases, cherry-pick a couple where sympathetic plaintiffs were on the losing end of the legal argument, then find a reason to attack the judge for that result, and then, because of that case or two, label him ``against'' the little guy. As silly as that argument is, the judge himself laid waste to that argument during the hearing when he rattled off a number of cases where the so-called little guy came out on the winning end of the legal argument of a case.

At any rate, as we discussed at length during his hearings, the judge applies the law neutrally to every party before him, and that is what you expect of judges.

I disagree with some of my colleagues who have argued that judging is not just a matter of applying neutral principles. I think that view is inconsistent with the role our judges play in our system and, more importantly, with regard to the oath they take. That oath requires them to do ``equal right to the poor and the rich'' and to apply the law ``without respect to persons.'' Naturally, this is what it means to live under the rule of law, and this is what our nominee has done during his decade on the bench of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. So the judge applies the law ``without respect to persons,'' as he promised in his first oath he would, and he will repeat the oath when he goes on the Supreme Court.

Then, of course, as they move these goalposts, the judge has been criticized for the work he did on behalf of his former client, the U.S. Government, when he was at the Justice Department.

Of course, we have had a lot of nominees over many years who have worked as lawyers in the government. Most recently, Justice Kagan worked as Solicitor General. As we all know, she argued before the Supreme Court that the government could constitutionally ban pamphlet material. That is a fairly radical position for the U.S. Government to take. When asked about that argument during her hearing, she said that she was a government lawyer making an argument on behalf of her client, the U.S. Government, and it had nothing to do with her personal views on the subject. Now, there is a whole different standard for some people of this body. That answer is apparently no longer good enough. To hear the other side tell it, government lawyers are responsible for the positions their client, the U.S. Government, takes and the positions they have to argue. I respect my colleagues who are making this argument, but this argument does not hold water.

What, then, are my colleagues on the other side left with after moving these goalposts many times, after making all of these arguments that don't stick? What are they left with? Because they can't get any of their attacks on the judge to stick, all they are left with are complaints about the so-called dark money being spent by advocacy groups. Yes, that is where the goalpost took them--to dark money.

As I said yesterday, that speaks volumes about the nominee, that after reviewing 2,700 cases, roughly 180,000 pages of documents from the Department of Justice and the George W. Bush Library, thousands of pages of briefs, and over 20 hours of testimony before our committee and hundreds of questions both during and after the hearing, all his detractors are left with is an attack on the nominee's supporters-- people out there whom the nominee probably doesn't even know. They raise money to tell people about him, which they have a constitutional right to do under the First Amendment freedom of speech.

The bottom line is that they don't have any substantive attacks on this nominee that will stick, so they shifted tactics, yet again moving the goalpost, and are now trying to intimidate and silence those who are speaking out and making their voices heard in regard to this nominee.

Here is the most interesting thing about this latest development: There are advocacy groups on every side of this nomination. There are people out there for him, raising money and spending the money for him, and there are people out there against him who are raising and spending money so people know why they disagree with this nominee. Of course, that is nothing new. That has been true of past nominations, and there is nothing wrong with citizens engaging in the First Amendment freedom of speech and in the process of being for or against and encouraging public debate on whether a person ought to be on the Supreme Court. It was certainly true when liberal groups favoring the Garland nomination poured money into Iowa to attack me last year for not holding a hearing. For that reason, I didn't hear a lot of my Democratic colleagues complain about that money that could well be called dark money as well.

There are groups on the left who are running ads in opposition to this nominee and threatening primaries. They are actually threatening primaries against Democrats who might not tow the line and might not help filibuster this nomination. For some reason, I am not hearing a lot of complaints about the money that is being raised to make some Democrats who might support this nominee look bad.

As I have said, there is nothing wrong with citizens engaging in the process and making their voices heard. This is one of the ways we are free to speak our minds in a democracy. It has been true for a long, long time.

As I said yesterday in the committee meeting, if you don't like outside groups getting involved, the remedy is not to intimidate and try to silence that message; the remedy you ought to follow is to support nominees who apply the law as it is written and then, in turn, leave the legislating to a body elected to make laws under our Constitution--the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Regardless of what you may think about advocacy groups, about their getting involved, there is certainly no reason that they should go to great lengths to talk about this in our committee or talk about it to the nominee because he can't control any of that.

The truth is, the Democrats have no principled reason to oppose this nomination, and those are words from David Frederick that I have quoted before. It is clear instead that much of the opposition to the nominee is pretextual. The merits and qualifications of the nominee apparently no longer matter.

The only conclusion we are left to draw is that the Democrats will refuse to confirm any nominee this Republican President may put forth. There is no reason to think the Democrats would confirm any other judge the President identified as a potential nominee or any judge he would nominate. In fact, we don't even need to speculate on that point because the minority leader has spoken that point and made his point very clear. Before the President made this nomination, he said: ``I can't imagine us supporting anyone from his list.'' So it was very clear from the very beginning that the minority leader was going to lead this unprecedented filibuster. The only question was what excuse he would manufacture to justify it. The nominee enjoys broad bipartisan support from those who know him, and he enjoys bipartisan support in the Senate.

I recognize that the minority leader is under very enormous pressure from special interest groups to take this abnormal step of filibustering a judge, because filibustering the Senate is not unusual but filibustering a Supreme Court Justice is very unusual. I know other Members of his caucus are operating under those very same pressures as well. In fact, yesterday, while the committee was debating the nomination, a whole host of liberal and progressive groups held a press conference outside of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, demanding that the campaign arm cut off campaign funds for any incumbent Democrat who

doesn't filibuster this nominee. Those groups argue that because the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee had already raised a lot of money off the minority leader's announcement that he was going to lead a filibuster, the committee shouldn't provide that money to any Member who refused to join this misguided effort.

Well, all I can say is that it would be truly unfortunate for Democrats to buckle to that pressure and engage in the first partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court Justice nominee in U.S. history--another way to say that is, the first partisan filibuster in the 228-year history of our country since 1789. If they regard this nominee as the first in our history worthy of a partisan filibuster, it is clear they would filibuster anyone.

I have stated since long before the election that the new President would nominate the next Justice and the Judiciary Committee would process that nomination. That is just what we have done through the committee, and now we are doing it on the floor. So I urge my colleagues not to engage in this unprecedented partisan demonstration. Everyone knows the nominee is a qualified, mainstream, independent judge of the very highest caliber. Republicans know it, Democrats know it, and the left-leaning editorial boards across the country prove that even the press knows it. I urge my colleagues on the other side to come to their senses and not engage in the first partisan filibuster in U.S. history and instead join me and vote in favor of Judge Gorsuch's confirmation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have several of my colleagues on this side of the aisle who want to speak, but I just want to take a minute and a half or so to clarify some things I have heard from the other side that need to be counteracted.

First of all, I don't know whether they mentioned the term ``Ginsburg rule,'' but we do have this Ginsburg rule that was set out a long time ago when Judge Ginsburg came before the Senate for her confirmation. She said that you can't comment on things that might come before the Court because obviously you would be violating judicial ethics. Then I will comment on some things people have said about Brown v. Board of Education.

The very fact that Judge Gorsuch has declined to offer his opinion on legal issues that are likely to come before the Supreme Court demonstrates what we should all expect of him: his judicial independence. That is what we expect of every judge. The judge's decision not to offer his opinion on issues that may come before him is consistent with judicial ethics rules and is consistent with what I have referred to already as the Ginsburg rule or the Ginsburg standard, which all Supreme Court nominees in recent memory have followed. As Justice Ginsburg said, commenting on these issues is not fair to parties who might come before the Court in future years. That is what Judge Gorsuch said as well.

Questions to this end are nothing more than an attempt to compromise the judge's independence, and he showed us that he wasn't going to have his independence compromised because he is going to do what judges should do: look at the facts of a case, look at the law, and make those decisions based only on that and send no signals whatsoever ahead of time of how he might view something.

Along these lines, my colleagues said that the judge should have announced that he agreed with the ruling in Brown v. Board of Education but didn't offer enough information about this opinion in an appropriate discussion of precedent.

I will quote our nominee. He said this: ``Senator, Brown v. Board of Education corrected an erroneous decision, a badly erroneous decision, and vindicated a dissent by the first Justice Harlan in Plessy v. Ferguson, where he correctly identified that separate to advantage one race can never be equal,'' end of the quote of our nominee. So the judge spoke about precedent very appropriately. He answered our questions in a manner consistent with his obligations and with past nominees.

One more point. I keep hearing complaints that the judge won't make a commitment to follow Roe v. Wade, but my colleagues' requests really boil down to a quest for a promise to reach results that they want. They demand adherence to Roe v. Wade on the one hand and a promise to overrule Citizens United on the other hand, as examples. Asking the judge to make commitments about precedent is inappropriate. I have said this so many times, and my colleagues will repeat it many times as well. It compromises the judge's independence.

Instead of being beholden to the President, my colleagues would have the judge be beholden to them. This nominee isn't going to be beholden to a President, and he is not going to be beholden to any Senator because if he did that, he would be compromising his views.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we are continuing to debate the nomination of Judge Gorsuch to serve as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. My colleagues on both sides of the aisle have said that this is an important moment for the Senate. I couldn't agree more.

I think it is important to reflect on why we are here and how we got here. Before I turn to the Supreme Court and the current debate, let me take just a few minutes to talk about lower court nominees and provide a little bit of history and context, especially for the benefit of some of the Senators who weren't here over the last few years.

I am going to start way back in the spring of 2001. President George W. Bush had just been elected President. As we all know, it was a close election, and it was hard fought. The Senate was closely divided, with the Republicans in control. Given how close the Presidential election was, there were elements of the hard left who refused to accept the results of that election. Some blamed Ralph Nader, others blamed Governor Jeb Bush, and still others blamed the Supreme Court. Many on the hard left claimed that President George W. Bush wasn't a ``legitimate'' President. Liberal interest groups were egging on the Democratic leadership to fight the new President at every turn.

That still sounds very familiar for this year we are in.

At the same time, one major concern for the hard-left liberal interest groups was that President Bush, who they claimed wasn't legitimate, would be able to nominate conservative judges. Again, doesn't that sound familiar?

Senator Cornyn went over some of this same subject yesterday, but it deserves discussion now, and it serves as a reminder of where we have been before because sometimes the past predicts the future.

So in the spring of 2001, the hard-left interest groups went to the Senate Democratic leadership with a plan. According to the New York Times, ``42 of the Senate's 50 Democrats attended a private retreat . . . where a principal topic was forging a unified party strategy to combat the White House on judicial nominees.'' Thinking about 2017, doesn't that sound a little familiar?

At that meeting--Cass Sunstein, Marcia Greenberger, and Laurence Tribe spoke at the retreat and pitched to the Democrats who were present their idea of how this crusade could proceed.

According to one attendee, ``They said it was important for the Senate to change the ground rules, and there was no obligation to confirm someone just because they are scholarly and erudite.''

Well, let's think about that for a moment. Why do you suppose they believed they needed to ``change the ground rules'' for confirming judges? It is because up to that point you didn't filibuster judges. You just didn't. You heard the majority leader speak to that point in his short remarks this morning about how things have changed after more than 200 years.

Well, as it happened, less than a month after the caucus retreat, Senator Jeffords from Vermont switched parties and began caucusing with the Democrats. That threw the majority to the Democrats for the next 18 months. Then they lost the election of 2002, and in the spring of 2003, Republicans were back in the majority.

Now back in the minority, Senate Democrats went ahead with the plans that were enunciated at that retreat to ``change the ground rules.'' For the first time in the history of the Senate, they began to systematically filibuster circuit court nominees--not because they believed the nominees weren't qualified. The nominees were qualified. And it was not because they believed the nominees didn't have the necessary experience. The nominees did have the necessary experience. They filibustered those nominees because they believed they were conservative judges.

So with respect to appellate court nominees, Senate Democrats, at the behest of the far left, took the unprecedented step of using the filibuster in a very systematic way for the first time in Senate history. At the time, there was a lot of debate about changing the rules, dubbed the so-called nuclear option, so that nominees would be afforded an up-or-down vote, consistent with the Senate's history and practice.

Well, Republicans exercised restraint and agreed to step back. Then President Obama became President. Our side didn't like the use of a filibuster for judges, but we also didn't think there should be two sets of rules--one for a Republican President and one for a Democratic President. Common sense tells you that is a legitimate position to take.

We defeated two circuit court nominees, one to the Ninth Circuit and one to the DC Circuit. Then President Obama nominated three individuals to the DC Circuit. Our side denied cloture on those three nominees to the DC Circuit.

Well, at that point, their side didn't like playing by the rules they wrote, so then-Majority Leader Reid took another unprecedented step. In November of 2013, he utilized the so-called nuclear option to eliminate the very tactic they pioneered. The nuclear option becomes effectively the regroup.

So that is how the filibuster was first used on lower court nominees and later eliminated. Senate Democrats took the unprecedented step to utilize that. Then when it no longer benefited them, they used unprecedented means to eliminate it.

This brings me back to where we are today and the rest of this week-- talking about a Supreme Court nominee, Judge Gorsuch.

Everyone knows we had a big debate last year about whether to proceed with the Garland nomination. There were 52 Republicans who believed we should follow Senate history and tradition and not proceed with the nomination in the middle of a heated election year.

I know it frustrates my colleagues to hear me say it, but fact is that in 1992, when then-Senator Biden was chairman of the Judiciary Committee, he announced that he wouldn't hold a hearing to fill a vacancy in the last year of President Bush's term. So last year, we followed the precedent that then-Senator Biden described in 1992 for all of the same reasons he discussed.

You get back to this commonsense principle: Can you have one rule for Republican Presidents and another rule for Democratic Presidents? We didn't feel you could. And, of course, everyone in this Chamber knows that if the shoe were on the other foot, the Democrats would have done the same thing, because they said they would. In fact, President Obama's former White House Counsel admitted as much. She said she would have recommended the same course of action if the tables were turned.

So now here we are, April 2017, with the nominee before us. Just as in 2001, we have just had a very contentious Presidential election. It was close. It was hard fought, and frankly, some on

the hard left refused to accept the results of the election. Once again, leftwing groups are egging on the minority leader to take another unprecedented step with respect to judicial nominations. Only this time they want him to lead the very first partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court nomination in U.S. history. Based on the vote we had yesterday, it appears 44 Democrats are prepared to follow the minority leader on this fool's errand. No Supreme Court nomination in our country's entire history has ever failed because of a partisan filibuster. There is no getting around that fact.

Abe Fortas, whom I have referred to, was subjected to a bipartisan filibuster over ethical concerns when President Johnson tried to elevate him to be Chief Justice.

Justice Thomas was confirmed by a vote of 52 to 48. I was here for that nomination. A single Senator--any Senator--could have demanded a cloture vote, but out of 100 Senators, none did. Why? For the simple, commonsense fact and 200 years of history that you don't filibuster a Supreme Court nomination.

But today is entirely different. The minority is committed to filibustering this fine nominee in the first partisan filibuster in U.S. history.

So here we are. The President has nominated an exceptionally qualified judge to take Justice Scalia's seat on the Supreme Court. The Democrats will break new ground again by conducting a partisan filibuster of the nominee. Republicans aren't the ones breaking new ground here. As a matter of fact, the Democrats' own Vice Presidential nominee last year emphatically promised that the Democrats would further change the rules to make sure an expected-President Clinton's nominees couldn't be filibustered.

So at the end of the day, the fact is that if Democrats insist on a filibuster, the Republicans will insist on following the practice that Senators have followed for more than 200 years, and that is not to have a partisan filibuster for somebody going to the Supreme Court. We don't conduct partisan filibusters of Supreme Court nominees, and we certainly are not going to start with this highly qualified nominee.

I hope those that think back 16 or 17 years--when this meeting of Democrats in retreat came to the conclusion that you had to break new ground--realize that they have poisoned the well of the comity traditional of the Senate. I think maybe a lot of them realize that was a mistake, as we realized that was a mistake, and it would be nice to get back to the comity of the Senate that existed on judges prior to 15 or 16 years ago. But that is going to take people on their side who were present at that same retreat who are still in the U.S. Senate to drill a new well, because the present one is poisoned, and we need to get back to the comity that we have had.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, millions of Americans and thousands of Iowans annually fall victim to senseless acts of crime. In their honor and in honor of the thousands of advocates, first responders, crisis hotline volunteers, and others who work tirelessly on their behalf, I introduced a resolution to commemorate National Crime Victims' Rights Week.

I thank Senators Leahy, Crapo, and Feinstein for joining me as cosponsors of this important resolution. In 2017, National Crime Victims' Rights Week takes place from April 2 through April 8. We have commemorated the week every April since 1981.

Here in Washington, DC, and across the Nation, activities are being organized to highlight and promote this year's theme: ``Strength. Resilience. Justice.'' The theme for 2017 recognizes the strength of individual victims. It highlights the resilience of survivors as well as the victim assistance organizations who support survivors in their efforts to heal. And it reflects the importance of securing justice for crime victims.

During this week, we also highlight the contributions of the crisis hotline volunteers and staff, victims' rights attorneys, advocates, sexual assault nurse examiners, police officers, and other emergency responders who provide critical assistance to survivors of crime in communities across the United States. On Friday, several of these individuals will receive awards during a ceremony hosted by the Office for Victims of Crime at the U.S. Department of Justice. I extend my gratitude to those award recipients for their work to assist victims of crime.

Many of us in this Chamber have championed landmark legislation to enhance the rights of crime victims. For example, I was an original cosponsor of the 1984 Victims of Crime Act,

which established the Crime Victims Compensation Fund. I also joined my colleagues in supporting the 1994 enactment of the Violence Against Women Act. This landmark legislation enhanced penalties for sex offenders and made hundreds of millions of dollars available for activities and programs to respond to the needs of domestic violence survivors.

The Judiciary Committee, which I chair, has continued to make the protection of victims' rights a top priority. Two years ago, we approved the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act, which makes new resources available to help survivors of human trafficking. We also approved the Survivors' Bill of Rights, which establishes new rights for survivors of federal crimes of sexual violence. We cleared the Justice for All Reauthorization Act, which enhances crime survivors' ability to seek restitution and improves victims' access to legal services. And we approved the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crimes Reauthorization Act of 2016.

Supporting and protecting victims of crime will again be an important priority this year in the Judiciary Committee. Last week, I convened a hearing to examine allegations that dozens of young athletes experienced sexual abuse at the hands of coaches, instructors, and others.

Senators Feinstein, Collins, and I also recently introduced a bill, the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse Act, to ensure that sexual assault allegations by young athletes will be reported and investigated promptly. This year, we also will make it a priority to extend and update programs authorized under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act.

In closing, crime victims and survivors in the United States deserve our assistance in helping them cope with the often devastating consequences of crime. That is why it is so important that we support the mission of National Crime Victims' Rights Week. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting passage of this important resolution.

Mr. President, I was going to ask unanimous consent to that extent. I guess you have already announced that it is in place; is that right? I am going to add something to what the Acting President pro tempore just said, so let me start over again.

I ask unanimous consent that the time until 10:45 a.m. be equally divided between Senator Feinstein or her designee and myself or my designee and that the time from 10:45 a.m. to 11 o'clock be reserved for Senator Schumer's leader remarks.

Mr. President, that is what my unanimous consent request said.

I will probably need more than 9 minutes, but I will put the rest of my statement in the Record.

Mr. President, within the next hour or so, we will learn whether the minority will come to their senses or whether they will engage in the very first partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee. All indications are that they are committed to their course. That is unfortunate. It truly is.

The question one has to ask is this: What, exactly, is so objectionable about this nominee that he should be subjected to the first partisan filibuster in U.S. history? Is he, really, not well qualified?

He attended Columbia for his bachelor's, Harvard for law school, Oxford for his doctorate. He clerked for not one--but two--Supreme Court Justices. He has spent over 10 years on the circuit court and has heard 2,700 cases. It is clear, then, that he is extremely well qualified.

So what is it? What makes this nominee so objectionable?

The truth is, throughout this process, the minority, led by their leader, has

been desperately searching for a justification for their preplanned filibuster. Over the course of the last couple of months, they have trotted out one excuse after another, but nothing will stick.

They said he isn't mainstream, but that is not true. Everyone from Obama's Solicitor General to Rachel Maddow has said he is mainstream. They said he isn't independent, but everyone knows he is an independent judge. He is his own man, and he understands the role of a judge.

Then they roll out this ridiculous argument that he is for the big guy and against the little guy. Even liberal law professors like Noah Feldman made fun of that attack. He called it ``a truly terrible idea.'' Then they said we should hold him responsible for the legal positions he took on behalf of the U.S. Government. The only problem there is, we have had a lot of nominees who have represented the U.S. Government. They worked for it; the government was their client. The other side certainly didn't want to hold Justice Kagan responsible for taking the truly extreme position as Solicitor General that the U.S. Government was constitutionally permitted to ban pamphlets. So that argument fell flat as well.

Then, of course, after they ran out of substantive arguments against the judge and his record, they resorted to attacks on his supporters or the President who nominated him or the selection process, anything-- anything--to distract from the judge and the stellar record he has.

They trotted out this absurd claim that we should reject the judge not because of some opinion he has written but because those who support his nomination have the gall to actually speak out and make their voices heard, except they forgot to check with their own supporters first to make sure none of them are spending so-called dark money. Of course, they are spending money on issue advocacy, just as the law permits and the Constitution protects under the First Amendment.

As we all know, issue advocacy during Supreme Court nominations is absolutely nothing new. Those who are complaining about issue advocacy today don't seem to remember the TV ads the far left ran attacking Judge Bork in 1987. I remember those ads. I remember the ads the left ran against Justice Thomas as well. Of course, outside groups on the left have attacked every Republican nominee since.

So expressing selective outrage over issue advocacy doesn't advance their cause either, but they still keep it up.

Finally, the talking point we have heard repeated most often over the last 24 hours is that Candidate Trump ``outsourced'' his selection process to conservative groups. I must say, I find that argument the oddest of all. It is the kind of thing Justice Scalia would call ``pure applesauce.''

The President didn't outsource the selection process to conservative groups. He made his list public for the entire country to review during the campaign--the first President to do that. If anything, he outsourced the selection process to whom? The voters--the American people.

So what do you do? You are out of substantive arguments from the other side. Even shots fired at the judge's supporters somehow boomerang back and hit your own advocacy groups. We have seen all of this before. I have been through a few of these debates over the years. When a Republican occupies the Oval Office, the nominees may change, but the attacks remain the same.

You will hear today the same poll-tested catch phrases we have all heard time and again. You will hear words and phrases like ``outside the mainstream,'' ``far right,'' and ``extreme.'' Invariably, these are words the left tries to pin on every nominee of a Republican President and the people he submits to the Senate. With each nominee, the playbook on the left seems to be the very same. The nomination process, it seems, is a desperate attempt to retell the same old preordained narrative.

As I have said, those of us who have been through a few of these episodes have heard it all before, and we are going to hear it in the next few hours again, but this time something is very different. This time, they intend to use the same old preordained narrative to justify the first partisan filibuster in the 220-year history of the United States. Of course, this result was preordained because as the minority leader said weeks before the President was even sworn into office, ``it's hard for me to imagine a nominee that Donald Trump would choose that would get Republican support that we [Democrats] could support.''

You have already committed to the far left that you will launch the first partisan filibuster in U.S. history. So you are stuck. You have to press forward, don't you, even though you know the effort is doomed to fail. You know he will be confirmed, and you know in your heart of hearts he deserves to be confirmed. That is why this is an especially sad state of affairs, and I hope my colleagues will change their minds.

At the end of the day, we are left with an exceptional nominee, with impeccable credentials and broad bipartisan support. In short, we have in Judge Gorsuch a nominee who proves without a doubt that the minority leader would lead a filibuster against anyone nominated by this President. That is unfortunate because it is not the way it has to be, but it is a situation we cannot accept.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, we are now well on our way to confirming Judge Gorsuch as the next Justice of the Supreme Court. I have a few things to say about the way we have gotten here.

Earlier today, the other side--meaning the Democrats--made a very unprecedented break with Senate history and with Senate tradition. They launched the first partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee in our Nation's history. For our part, we Republicans insisted that we follow the practice of the Senate. We don't engage in partisan filibusters of Supreme Court nominees.

Yesterday, I came to the floor to speak about the path that brought us to this point. As I discussed, way back in 2001, the current minority leader and some of his allies on the far left hatched a plan to, in their words, ``change the ground rules'' with regard to lower court nominees. I noted a New York Times article describing the Democratic senatorial caucus retreat, where the new approach to nominees was discussed; in other words, where they discussed the strategy for changing the ground rules of how judges are considered by the United States Senate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the May 1, 2001, New York Times article entitled ``Washington talk; Democrats Readying for Judicial Fight,'' and the April 5, 2017, story from the Washington Examiner entitled ``The Gorsuch Plagiarism Story is Bogus.''

After a brief time in the majority, Senate Democrats were back in the minority in 2003--so approximately 2 years after they had this strategy. It was at that time the Senate Democrats began an unprecedented and systemic filibuster of President George W. Bush's circuit court nominees.

Then the tables turned. President Obama was elected, and Republicans held the Senate minority. At that time, even though many of us did not like the idea of using the filibuster on judicial nominees, we also recognized that we could not have two sets of rules--one for Republican Presidents and one for Democratic Presidents.

Our party defeated two nominees for the lower courts by filibuster and denied cloture to three of President Obama's nominees to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. But the other side did not appreciate being subject to the rules that they first established and started using in 2003 to filibuster judges. So at that point, in 2013, they decided to change the rules of the Senate.

By the way, they changed the rules by breaking the rules. I say that because the rules of the Senate say it takes a two-thirds vote to change the

rules of the Senate, but they changed it by a majority vote. Now at that time, as we all know, Majority Leader Reid changed the rules for all Cabinet nominations and lower court nominees. To say that my colleagues and I were disappointed is a gross understatement.

The majority claimed that they left intact the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees. But my view back in 2013, when they did that, was that the distinction Majority Leader Reid drew between lower court nominees and Supreme Court nominees was not a meaningful one. My view, in 2013, was that Majority Leader Reid had effectively eliminated the filibuster for both lower court nominees and the Supreme Court.

Here is the reason. There are two circumstances where this issue might conceivably arise: either you have a Democrat in the White House and a Democrat-controlled Senate or you have a Republican in the White House and a Republican-led Senate.

In the first, there was a Democrat in the White House and the party led by Leader Reid and Leader-in-Waiting Schumer was in the majority. If for some extraordinary reason Senate Republicans chose to filibuster the nominee, there is no question that a Majority Leader Reid or a Majority Leader Schumer would change the rules.

Now, I do not believe that this particular circumstance would ever arise, because our side does not believe in filibustering Supreme Court nominees. I have never voted to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee, not once. I think I have a pretty good sense of the rest of our caucus. Our side just does not believe in it. It is not much more complicated than that simple commonsense statement I just made.

Of course, even if for some extraordinary reason our side did choose to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee, we do not have to speculate as to whether the other side would have changed the precedent with respect to the Supreme Court. Last year, when everyone thought that Secretary Clinton was going to win the election, their own Vice-Presidential candidate said that they would change the rules if they needed to if we had a Republican filibuster.

Then, of course, the other circumstance where this issue would arise is what we have seen this very day--a Republican in the White House and a Republican-controlled Senate. We saw this very day that the minority was willing to take that last step and engage in the first partisan filibuster in U.S. history.

As I have repeatedly discussed, because they were willing to do it with a nominee as well-qualified as Judge Gorsuch, it proved, without a shadow of a doubt, that they would filibuster any one submitted by this Republican President. That is why, on the day that Majority Leader Reid took that unprecedented action in 2013 to break the Senate rules to change the Senate rules, I spoke on the floor.

I concluded my remarks this way. So I want to quote myself:

So the majority has chosen to take us down this path. The

silver lining is that there will come a day when the rolls

are reversed. When that happens, our side will likely

nominate and confirm lower court and Supreme Court nominees

with 51 votes, regardless of whether the Democrats actually

buy into this fanciful notion that they can demolish the

filibuster on the lower court nominees and still preserve it

for the Supreme Court nominees.

That is what I said when Reid took that extraordinary step. So though I am extremely pleased that we will confirm such an exceptional nominee to the Supreme Court in the next day or so, I am, of course, disappointed with what we were forced to do to get it done. Sadly, I cannot say I am surprised. I think my surprise, or the fact that I can't be surprised--you can tell it from what I said back there, what I just quoted from the 2013 speech that I gave.

I knew when Majority Leader Reid did it in 2013 that this is where we were headed. That is where we ended earlier this afternoon. But the bottom line is that you cannot have two sets of rules. You cannot clothe yourself in the tradition of a filibuster while simultaneously conducting the very first partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee in history. You cannot demand a rules change only when it suits the Democratic Members of this body.

You just can't have it both ways. You can't use the Senate rules as both a shield and a sword. But I must say, the one thing that does not disappoint me is this: The nominee to take Justice Scalia's seat is eminently qualified. He will apply the law faithfully without respect to persons. He is a judge's judge. Come some time tomorrow, we will all start calling him Justice Gorsuch.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to fellow Iowan Judge Edward ``Nick'' McManus.

Judge McManus died earlier this month at the age of 97.

He has a long and deep history in Iowa politics and judicial activities.

When I first entered the State legislature, Judge McManus was known as Lieutenant Governor McManus. He also served in the Iowa Senate.

In 1962, President John F. Kennedy appointed him chief judge of the Northern District of Iowa where he served for 23 years when he took senior status. His ascension to this position made him the first native-born Iowan appointed to the Federal Northern District Court of Iowa. He remained on the bench for a total of 55 years and was still taking cases at the time of his death.

He was proud of his service on the court and the modernization of the court he started in 1962.

Upon Judge McManus's death, current acting U.S. Attorney Sean Berry told the Cedar Rapids Gazette, ``The changes implemented by Judge McManus left an indelible and positive impact on the efficient administration of justice for all litigants in the federal court.''

He took great pride that the only time he had a backlog of cases was the first 100 that were there when he took the job. He took very seriously the Bill of Rights Sixth Amendment where it says ``the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial.''

His longtime assistant, Deb Frank, may have said it best, ``I know he loved to work. He loved what he was doing. I think it's just the whole idea of coming to the office every day and doing what needed to be done.''

Barbara and I send our sincerest condolences to Judge McManus's five sons, two step-sons, other family members, and friends.

He served our State and our country with great distinction and will be missed.

Mr. President, in 2006, I was successful in enacting much needed updates to the IRS whistleblower program. Up until that time, the program was entirely a voluntary award program. There was also no central office within the IRS for handling whistleblower claims. Given this, there was little incentive for whistleblowers to step forward potentially risking their careers.

My 2006 amendments sought to bolster the IRS whistleblower program by making a special program targeted at going after high-dollar tax cheats, such as corporations. It did this by making awards mandatory in cases where a whistleblower discloses tax fraud totaling $2 million or more. Moreover, the 2006 amendments established the Whistleblower Office within the IRS to formalize and manage the program.

The IRS whistleblower program has turned into one of the most effective programs in addressing tax evasion--leading to the recovery of more than $3 billion in taxes that otherwise would have been lost to fraud. I firmly believe the program has the potential to collect even greater sums going forward. However, for this to occur, the IRS is going to have to completely embrace the program and start to view whistleblowers as their allies.

The Government Accountability Office, GAO, issued a report on the program in 2015 that expressed concerns that long timelines and poor communication may be discouraging whistleblowers. This is exactly what I have been hearing from whistleblowers for years. Too often whistleblowers are waiting in the dark for years with no communication on where their claim is in the system.

While the IRS has made improvements in this area, I fear that without further improvements some whistleblowers may start to question whether stepping forward is worth their time and effort. My concern is exacerbated by the fact that under current law, IRS whistleblowers have no protections against employer retaliation for good-faith disclosures.

That is why I am pleased to be joined by Senator Wyden today in introducing legislation that seeks to address these issues. The IRS Whistleblower Improvements Act would increase communication between the IRS and whistleblowers, while protecting taxpayer privacy, and provide legal protections to whistleblowers from employers retaliating against them for disclosing tax abuses.

To increase communication, our bill would specifically allow the IRS to exchange information with whistleblowers where doing so would be helpful to an investigation. It would further require the IRS to provide status updates to whistleblowers at significant points in the review process and allows for further updates at the discretion of the IRS. It does this while ensuring the confidentiality of this information is maintained.

Moreover, to protect whistleblowers from employer retaliation, our bill extends antiretaliation provisions to IRS whistleblowers that are presently afforded to whistleblowers under other whistleblower laws, such as the False Claims Act and Sarbanes-Oxley.

Too often, whistleblowers are treated like skunks at a picnic. This is unfortunate, as often the only way to discover fraud and abuse is for a whistleblower to step forward. It is time we roll out the welcome mat for IRS whistleblowers. Our bill takes a good step in that direction.

I urge my colleagues to join Senator Wyden and me in supporting this commonsense legislation.